A
global computer hacking effort: China’s Politburo directed the
intrusion into Google’s computer systems in that country, a Chinese
contact told the American Embassy in Beijing in January, one cable
reported. The Google hacking was part of a coordinated campaign of
computer sabotage carried out by government operatives, private
security experts and Internet outlaws recruited by the Chinese
government. They have broken into American government computers and
those of Western allies, the Dalai Lama and American businesses since
2002, cables said.

Silence
Under Fire: Why Didn't the U.S. Publicly Air its
Suspicions?

If
the information in the cable is to be believed, the central
controlling body of China's government perpetrated what was perhaps
the most serious online attack on a U.S. corporation in our nation's
history. The Politburo of the Communist Party of China,
commonly referred to as the Politburo, is a 24-member council that
controls China's most important decisions.

The cyber-attacks
in question were dubbed "Operation Aurora" in the
security community and occurred from mid-2009 through December 2009.
Their highest profile target was Google, who had its "secret
recipe" -- its search engine source code -- stolen. Other
victims of the assault included Adobe Systems, Juniper Networks,
Rackspace, Yahoo, Symantec, Northrop Grumman and Dow Chemical.

But
if the U.S. government had strong evidence to believe that the
Politburo masterminded the attack, why not just come out and say it,
or take action?

The answer is likely a combination
of a complex set of factors. First, China owns much of the U.S.
government's debt obligations and is one of the largest trading
partners of the U.S. commercial sector. Economic action against
the nation would be virtually infeasible. Also, the U.S. is
desperately seeking China's cooperation on a number of geopolitical
issues including Korean stability, terrorism in the Middle East, and
global warming.

The leaked cable is somewhat embarrassing to
the U.S. government, regardless, given its relative inaction.
It will doubtless increase the East-West tension that exists between
the two global superpowers.

And perhaps that's precisely what
the perpetrators of this leak were hoping for.

Over
90 percent the documents aired since 2006 by Wikileaks targeted
the U.S. or its Middle Eastern allies. That percentage
ballooned further on Sunday with the release of 251,287 leaked U.S.
documents, of which the Google-related cables were part of.

A
key topic of debate is whether this new leak was truly geared at
preventing wrongdoing or represented an cyber-espionage attack
against the U.S.

The newly leaked documents indeed
largely deal with the Middle East, which could lend some support
to Wikileaks'
claims. On the other hand, documents like this one, while
certainly fascinating for the light they cast on the inside of U.S.
foreign policy, seem to have little effect on preventing military
wrongdoing and are more likely to hurt the U.S. financially and
diplomatically.

Mr. Assange in his early days in the hacking
community was a vocal proponent of anarchy -- the philosophy that the
world would be better off if its largest governments -- including the
U.S. government -- collapsed. The recent leaks, while damaging
to the U.S. gov't and its diplomatic relationships, aren't likely
damaging enough to achieve such a goal. However, they are
arguably Mr. Assange's most successful attack on the stability U.S.
government yet. And unlike past damage he inflicted on the U.S.
government's credibility, this one seems to have a great deal of meat
that has little to do with the war on terrorism.

Adrian Lamo
-- the convicted ex-hacker who turned in Bradley Manning, the young
soldier who leaked these documents -- condemned Wikileaks actions
and called for the U.S. government to be more vigorous in pursuing
charges against the leaks' masterminds, including Mr. Assange.

Known
co-conspirators reside in districts competent to arrest, prosecute,
and punish these people for their involvement in one of the greatest
breaches of trust in the history of our intelligence community.
[I]t would be irresponsible in the extreme for us to not use all the
tools available to us in bringing them to justice.

Wikleaks
was coincidentally the target of
a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack over the weekend.
While it's tempting to suspect that China or the U.S. governments
were responsible for this effort, that ultimately seems less likely.
As Wikileaks aptly
pointed out, it had already passed the cables to news efforts, so
attempts to take down the site would not prevent their release.

As
of 10 a.m. EST on Monday the site appeared to be up and responding
normally to requests. Wikileaks is
hosted by a worldwide collection of servers and is blocked in some
nations, including China.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

[A European's Perspective]I would like to say that I fully support all the newspapers that published these documents, Wikileaks included. It will further help in educating all the citizens around the globe about the current problems in all regions, it will guideline us in making informed decisions and facilitate to defend our true interests. These new leaks are not anti American nor are they pro American, the information is a fact, reality that we irrevocably have to learn to boldly face and deal with without questioning each other's allegiances and patriotism. Your refusal to regularly inform public on the basis of its lack of comprehension of the complex situations is not a good foundation for any democratic society. Clandestinity, continually hiding information from the general public and unworthy professes that it's all for our own good and safety is nothing more than act of retaining your own power, being unaccountable for blunders and corruption at best and crimes against humanity at worst.

One of the more interesting bits of information that was published that I think is worth a discussion is the Iran's nuclear plans. Nobody wants to see a nuclear Iran, that's what is the most important evident conclusion we can make judging on the basis of a given information to us in these new leaks and historical context of intra Arabic relationship and should be evident to any knowing person. Maybe at last it would help people to realize it, it's time for a new wave of self hating Americans who constantly post here on DT and on other boards about how bad and morally despicable they are for some commonly ridiculously unimportant and trivial actions that they have done in the past and certain measures that needs to be taken today to secure future and for to a certain extent understandably proud for their country yet continuously abused in every societal matters Iranians to finally recognize this, there's no concord and peace in future with nuclear Iran baggage, neither for North America nor for Europe and Iran's neighboring Arab countries. Take a side and make a decision. I only hope that my home EU and Russia will eventually man up, work and act together, because we all face the same danger in spite of our troubled history, minor economic and social differences.

"King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has repeatedly urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear programme."

"Officials in Jordan and Bahrain have openly called for Iran's nuclear programme to be stopped by any means, including military."

"Leaders in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt referred to Iran as "evil", an "existential threat" and a power that "is going to take us to war".

"Abu Dhabi crown prince Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed favoured action against Iran, sooner rather than later. "I believe this guy is going to take us to war ... It's a matter of time. Personally, I cannot risk it with a guy like [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. He is young and aggressive."

"King Abdullah had warned the Americans that if Iran developed nuclear weapons "everyone in the region would do the same, including Saudi Arabia".

With the exception of Egypt, there is one common factor among these middle-easter countries: they are all Monarchies. A change in the powers would jeopardize their status quo and even move them towards other type of governments, that may or may not be better for the people, that will take their actual rulers from power.

And Syria, and Iraq, and Lebanon, and Yemen, and Palestine/Israel (both sides), and Iran. And if you want to include more North African Arab countries like Egypt, then Libya, Tunisia, and Algeria, too. Of course, in many of these countries (including Egypt), Democracy is fairly limited, and the President has overwhelming power with very little real accountability, and he frequently hand-picks his own successor. And Iran is a theocracy. Several are also dealing with armed militant groups operating outside the scope of the law within their countries - Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, and of course Iraq come to mind as the most troubled by this, though most every Middle Eastern country has to deal with this issue to some degree. Also, some of the monarchies have ceded a large amount of control to democratically elected parliaments, similar to how the UK does things (though the crown retains more power in Arab states).

Of course, those in power never want to give it up, even in democratic societies like ours. On the issue of whether a change of government would be beneficial in the greater Middle East, it's difficult to say. Greater public involvement might lead to greater Islamification, like we see in Turkey - as the military has lessened its grip on power, the more conservative Muslims have been slowly rolling back Ataturk's reforms, or in Palestine, where Hamas won elections in the Gaza Strip. It probably won't improve stability or security - look to Lebanon and Yemen for examples - though perhaps in the long term things would normalize and end up for the best. The one thing that is certain is that any reforms must be undertaken carefully and methodically if they are to succeed. And they must come from within, since any attempts from outside to force change will lead to resistance and backlash.